This is why i stopped posting here. It gets old quoting someone who cant color inside the lines and having your post nuked. I think i had more posts deleted in my short time in non unchained then in all of my 2p2 history.

I also blame chez :P

There's nothing wrong with having a forum where the personal attack rules are enforced evenly, but I can see why that pisses off so many posters from Wookieland.

Yes, the people want more poles. Except for the Germans, of course. They don't seem to be too fond of them.

SenorKeed loves the pole. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I would've signed onto well named being the only mod until he wrote that he not only believes chez is acting in good faith now but that he believed that before being modded.

chez EXCLUSIVELY posts in bad faith. He's gleeful about it! He lies about lying, just (apparently) for the sheer thrill up winding up his enormous enemies list.

This is exactly why there shouldn't be some stupid anti-name-calling rule. Whining about alleged unfair enforcement of some stupid anti-name-calling rule is always way worse aids than any actual name calling.

Well exactly. We don't want no stinkin' anti-name-calling rules. That's why we've been posting over here in Baja to begin with.

^{Notice: I'm not saying we should bring Unchained back. ZOMG heavens no. Unchained is dead, buried, and ain't coming back. I'm just saying... don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Contrary to urban legend, Unchained wasn't created for name-calling, or as a containment thread for the First Face of the Formerly Unmentionable One. It was created to give the more overt quasi-r-word-ers more rope. ZOMG heavens no, that's never coming back. That's got nothing at all to do with good healthy name-calling.}

Jane, you ignorant slut...

I'm not sure how complicated it is to keep a 2nd set of rules when the 2nd set is no holds barred except site rules.

I hope they change the rules back so I can say "shut up you whiney ass *****".

I hope the same so I can say "Shut up, you ignorant, dip**** rape cheerleader."

I am pretty sure you cannot say that. REPORTED!!!

Both of you go to your room

Bump

I know chez's availability is limited right now for IRL reasons. So it might take a bit for you to get a response.

Seems like any of the mods could take a crack at that question.

Well, I already took my crack at it, in #21

edit: I could probably add that I was surprised by the poll results. I didn't realize the !!! threads were so highly desired. Prior to my being added as a mod, there were basically no active !!! threads, the Milo one having run out of steam. I'm pretty sure I cited that in support of the idea that we could go ahead and close them. Oops? Anyway, I remain not particularly thrilled about the proposal I offered above, which I sort of doubt will be seconded by the other mods anyway, but I also remain non-plussed about trying to mod the forum in a way that a large majority opposes. But at the moment I'm simply waiting for chez and whosnext to weigh in further.

I'm around a bit. I did realise that the !!! we're in high demand which is why I provided them in the first place and was partly why I was reluctant to agree to get rid of them totally. I also enjoy that side of things myself even though I struggle to understand how anyone takes it as more than entertainment.

For me the issues are a) keeping that side of things from derailing the content threads and b) preventing the !!! threads from becoming a problem for 2+2.

And I suspect chez said all he wants to say when he said sorry, PU is gone, doesn't matter what you think, bye

Ah, I missed post 21, my bad.

Like, the only reason politics regulars posted in PU was to engage in personal barbs and post in the "who are the bad posters" thread. It was by far the most beloved part of this subforum.

I don't think anyone liked the !!! threads. As you said it unnecessarily complicated the rules. We just want the personal attacks back

Says the guy who's on year three of his trolling vendetta.

Yep.

I think the "problem for 2+2" side of things is more tied to "objectionable content" (as specified by the site rules) than to personal attacks. I agree about derails although one gets the impression that for many posters here the derail is the content desired :P

I agree. Although I think the cycle of personal animosity can cause a problem as well.

I generally think that the idea of derailing a content thread is a bit silly. Those that want to have the original conversation can do those that wish to follow the thread where it leads can do so.